Tag: dividing property

Are TikTok Gifts Divorce Dissipation or Just Good Business

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

TikTok allows you to make monetary gifts. After one husband made over $300,000 in marital gifts to others on TikTok during his divorce, a court must decide if it is wasteful dissipation or just good business. It is easier than you think to spend and hide marital assets online as one New York trial court discovers.

Tik Tok Divorce

New York State of Mind

Social Media “gifts” allow a social influencer online to earn real money from followers. TikTok revolutionized online content monetization for creators, and now offers an array of over 100 different gifts. For example, an “I Love You” gift is valued at 49 coins and is worth approximately 65¢. On the other end of the spectrum, a “TikTok Universe” gift has a value of 44,999 coins which is worth about $562.

On April 9, 2025, a couple filed for divorce in New York after eight years of marriage. There are three children of the marriage. Most notably, the Husband and Wife are both attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of New York.

At a recent hearing, the Wife asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem over her Husband, not the children. In New York, a guardian ad litem can be appointed for a litigant if the litigant appears to be in an “apparently chronic irrational and agitated state” resulting in the individual’s inability to effectively litigate their case without assistance.

To prove a guardian was appropriate, she alleged her Husband had become increasingly paranoid, erratic and aggressive on his TikTok “live streams” and was actively dissipating marital assets.

The court heard evidence of the Husband’s recordings on TikTok some of which were filmed right outside the courtroom:

“CJB [the husband] got Court tomorrow. Ain’t no mother fucking judge check me. CJB is vibing right now. Don’t worry about the consequences.”

In his defense, the Husband characterized his TikTok expenditures as investments rather than gifts. He confirmed that he spent at least $300,000.00 on TikTok, approximately $275,000.00 after the divorce was filed: “So, Judge, when it comes to give away money, I don’t — I can’t affirmatively say I have given away money. Have I made — these are marketing and business expenses.”

Florida Dissipation

I’ve written about dissipation of marital assets before. In a divorce proceeding, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

One factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

For an expenditure to be considered dissipation, there must be evidence of intentional misconduct. This means that the spending spouse must have intentionally used marital funds for their own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage. Simple mismanagement or squandering of an asset, even if the other spouse disapproves, does not constitute dissipation.

It’s up to you New York

In the New York case, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for the Husband as the Wife met the criteria. The Husband was found to have engaged in dishonest conduct. He represented to the court he was represented by legal counsel, and then admitted he had not yet retained counsel.

Additionally, the Husband was in violation of New York’s Automatic Orders by failing to file a statement of net worth. Moreover, the Husband admitted to the judge that he had been spending approximately $275,000.00 on TikTok after the commencement of this action.

The New York decision is available here.

Divorce, Dissipation and an $1,800 Scotch

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The dissipation of marital assets in divorce is always something to watch for, especially when the marital asset is a $1,800 bottle of 1976 The Glenrothes Single Cask Single Malt Scotch Whisky. An Ohio court recently had to decide what to do when an expensive bottle of Scotch turned up missing.

Dissipation Divorce

The Shot

If, as they say, ‘all happy families are alike, and each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’ the case of the missing scotch is proof. In the recent Ohio matter the Mother and Father had been married over twenty years. Together, they raised three children, two now-adult children and one minor child. The Mother, Father, and child lived together in a house located in Blue Ash, Ohio outside of Cincinnati.

Then in April 2022, ongoing marital problems caused the couple to separate, and the Father moved out of their Blue Ash home. Following their separation, the relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate. Father eventually asked for an received a domestic violence injunction against Mother.

During the final hearing in their dissolution of the marriage, among the many claims, the Father argued that the Mother had denied him the opportunity to retrieve his personal items from the Blue Ash home. During the trial, the Father testified he had left behind his family memorabilia, some religious heirlooms, and most importantly, a bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch before he had moved out of the marital home.

The Father explained to the court that while he was given a brief opportunity to collect a few of his personal items from the home, the Mother never gave him a sufficient opportunity to meaningfully collect his belongings. He testified the Mother told him that she put the items he had left behind in storage and that he would be able to retrieve them the next time she was in Ohio.

Despite the Mother’s telling him that his personal possessions were in storage, and that he would be able to retrieve them, it was just not so. In fact, the Mother would later testify that she called a trash service and had all of the Father’s personal property (his heirlooms, religious mementos, and of course, the Scotch) destroyed. She also admitted that she did not tell the Father before tossing his personal belongings in the municipal dump.

At the trial, the court ruled that because of the Mother’s destruction of Father’s bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch and his other personal effects, she was to pay him $5,000. The Mother appealed.

Florida Dissipation

I’ve written about dissipation of marital assets before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

Some of the factors to justify an unequal distribution of the property include things like the financial situation the parties, the length of the marriage, whether someone has interrupted their career or an educational opportunity, or how much one spouse contributed to the other’s career or education.

Another important factor is whether one of the parties intentionally dissipated, wasted, depleted, or destroyed any of the marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

Dissipation of marital assets, such as spending marital funds on extramarital relationships, excessive gambling, and drug use, are examples which happens a lot. Less common is gifting your husband’s $1,800 bottle of scotch whiskey to trash collectors. Misconduct may serve as a basis for assigning the dissipated asset to the spending spouse when calculating equitable distribution.

When considering whether the dissipation of an asset resulted from misconduct, courts look to see if a spouse used marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. Merely mismanaging or simple squandering of marital assets is not enough. There has to be evidence of intentional dissipation or destruction.

The Chaser

On appeal, the Mother took issue with the court’s $5,000 contempt penalty for having Father’s items destroyed. The appellate court found that the penalty constituted an equitable offset because the Mother had denied Father the opportunity to collect his equitable distribution of household goods and furnishings.

This offset included all “remaining household goods, keepsakes, and furnishings,” which would include the bottle of 1976 Glenrothes Single Malt Scotch.  Accordingly, the appellate court rule the Mother’s claim that the family court failed to include the value of the bottle of scotch in the marital assets was without merit.

The Ohio Court of Appeal opinion is here.

Cryptocurrencies are now Marital Property in South Korea

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The South Korean Supreme Court, and now South Korea’s legislature, have made it clear that cryptocurrencies are marital property which are subject to property division during a divorce. Under the new law, South Korean spouses can claim a right to distribute cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin holdings, during divorce proceedings.

South Korea Bitcoin

Bitcoin and Bibimbap

South Korean divorces can be different from Florida divorces. For example, Florida is a no-fault state. But unless a married couple agrees to divorce by mutual consent, South Korea is strictly fault-based. This means that a party must prove adultery, desertion, extreme maltreatment or the whereabouts of the spouse have been unknown for three years to obtain a divorce.

South Korean divorces have been different from Florida divorces for another reason until recently, such as how to treat cryptocurrencies.  Most Americans are familiar with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. They are virtual currencies that use cryptography for security and operate on decentralized networks known as blockchains.

Cryptocurrency and other blockchain technologies have grown in recent years. Bitcoin is the most well-known cryptocurrency, and is currently valued at around $63,126. Under a new South Korean law, both tangible and intangible assets can be divided during a divorce:

Article 839-2 of the Korean Civil Act provides that a spouse may request a division of marital assets accumulated during the marriage upon the divorce in Korea.

This provision encompasses any “property” acquired during the marriage, including both tangible and intangible assets. Additionally, a recent Korean Supreme Court decision confirmed that cryptocurrency and other virtual assets, including Bitcoin, constitute “property” due to the recognized economic value as an intangible asset. Accordingly, any form of cryptocurrency held by a spouse during the marriage may be considered part of the marital estate if acquired during marriage in South Korean.

If a party is aware of cryptocurrency exchange was utilized, a Korean court can issue a fact-finding investigation or an order to obtain financial transaction records to verify the amount of cryptocurrency. In cases where a party is unaware of which exchange is being utilized, analyzing a spouse’s bank withdrawal records and other creative means of forensic investigations can trace transactions related to cryptocurrency exchanges.

Florida and Cryptocurrency

I have written about property division in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

When distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

While there is no specific case addressing the topic, under Florida’s equitable distribution statute, marital assets include as those acquired during the marriage, regardless of which party holds title. Additionally, a Florida appellate court last year approved a trial court’s equitable distribution of bitcoins and further authorized deducting Bitcoins from a Former Husband’s original share of Bitcoins, to reimburse the Wife for the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard drive.

A Cryptocurrency Armistice

Under South Korean law, when it comes to the actual division of cryptocurrency during a divorce, you may have the option to sell the holdings at the market value at an agreed time and divide the proceeds between the parties, or alternatively, simply divide the cryptocurrency holdings between the spouses, retain your interest and hope it appreciates. However, you should always consider the volatility of cryptocurrencies -meaning the price can change quickly in a very short time, making it possible for you to experience big gains or losses.

In some respects, tracking cryptocurrencies may be easier than keeping track of cash. That’s because you may be able to trace trades. blockchain technology preserves all transactions and does not allow external factors to modify or delete entries. Bank withdrawal records and other forensic investigations may allow for the discovery of unknown sources of crypto holdings.

The Korean Law Blog article is here.

Transforming Nonmarital Property Into Marital Property

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

For many clients going through divorce, there is a concern that their nonmarital property can transform into marital property, and then get distributed by a court. Believe it or not, divorce lawyers know that in certain cases, it is easy for your nonmarital asset to be transformed into a marital one. One couple in north Florida found out how courts look at whether your nonmarital property has been transformed into a marital property during a divorce.

marital property

Defining Marital and Nonmarital Property

Understanding a little about Florida’s equitable distribution statute will help you protect your premarital assets from being wrongly divided. In Florida marital assets and liabilities include assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.

Many people forget that marital assets also include the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both.

Another area of transforming nonmarital assets into marital one is by gifts. Under Florida law, marital assets include gifts between spouses during the marriage.

Conversely, nonmarital assets and liabilities include things like assets acquired and liabilities incurred before the marriage, and assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent. For example, an inheritance may initially be considered nonmarital property absent anything else.

Before a court will classify your assets as either marital or nonmarital, the court will consider numerous factors. One of the factors a court will look at is the title of the property. A court will also consider whether you commingled your marital funds with your nonmarital funds. Were there any increases in the value of your nonmarital stock accounts because of marital efforts, or control of the funds? If so, a court may consider that too. They will also look at the length of the marriage, and your intent concerning the marital or nonmarital status.

Transforming Marital Property

In a recent case in Florida’s panhandle, a husband and wife divorced. During the trial, the family judge added to the equitable distribution schedule one of the husband’s Certificate of Deposit accounts. However, there was no evidence that the CD account, which was acquired ten years before the marriage, had transformed into a marital asset.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found that there was no evidence at the trial that there was any enhancement of the CD account through the husband’s efforts. The court also noted that there was no evidence that the husband commingled his nonmarital funds with marital funds. Lastly, there was no evidence that he had given to his wife the CD account as a gift.

Gifts between spouses are an important and frequent way in which a nonmarital asset becomes a marital asset. Believe it or not, there are even cases in Florida where spouses accidentally gifted non-marital homes to their spouse by birthday card, not realizing they would be found to have the proper donative intent.

Florida’s New Anti-Gift Law

This year the law changed in Florida. The revised equitable distribution statute now prohibits interspousal gifts of real estate unless there is written documentation that complies with the provisions for conveyance of real property under the statute governing deeds to property.

The mere inference of a gift of real property will now not meet the threshold required for an interspousal gift unless there was written documentation for a conveyance.

The new law in Florida also makes it clear that when a spouse merely signs a deed for the sole purpose of conveying a homestead property – other than the other spouse or both spouses jointly – the deed does not change the character of the real property from nonmarital property to marital property.

Finally, the new amendment to the equitable distribution statute changes the definition of nonmarital assets and liabilities so that real property acquired separately through non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent and in which legal title has not been transferred to both parties as tenants in the entireties, remains non-marital property.

The appellate decision is here.

Equitable Distribution of Human Organs

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

If you promise to love someone with all your heart, can you ask a court for an equitable distribution of your donated human organs back? One very upset New York organ donor spouse is asking the court to be made whole again.

equitable distribution organs

Kidney Pains

Richard Batista, a 49-year-old doctor from Ronkonkoma who graduated from Cornell University Medical School in 1995, married Dawnell Batista on August 31 1990. The couple had three children, then ages 14, 11 and 8.

After Dawnell had two failed kidney transplants, her husband donated one of his kidneys to his wife in an operation that took place at the University of Minnesota Medical Centre on June 18 2001. Richard Batista said his marriage at the time was on the rocks because of the strain of his wife’s medical issues.

“My first priority was to save her life. The second bonus was to turn the marriage around.”

Four years later, Dawnell sued her husband for divorce, alleging domestic violence and infidelity.  One week before the divorce trial was scheduled to begin, Richard announced he was seeking a stay of the case until his retained “expert” could give an opinion to the court estimating how much his kidney was worth.

After Dawnell filed for a divorce, Richard wanted the court to either award him his kidney back as part of his settlement demand, or credit him in the equitable distribution the fair market value of his donated kidney – an estimated cool $1.5m.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired before the marriage; assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift. Importantly for this doctor’s divorce, will the donation of his pre-marital body part be construed as an interspousal gift?

Kidney Failure

In a 10-page decision, the Nassau County Supreme Court rejected the ex-husband’s request that it should consider his donated kidney as an item of property to be valued in the divorce suit, according to Dawnell Batista’s lawyer.

The court said “marital property” covers a lot of things, but human tissues or organs aren’t any of them. It also said that not only was Richard Batista’s attempt to extort money from his wife for the kidney he donated legally unsound:

“The defendant’s effort to pursue and extract monetary compensation therefore not only runs afoul of the statutory prescription, but conceivably may expose the defendant to criminal prosecution.”

Medical ethicists agreed that the case is a non-starter. Asked how likely it would be for the doctor to either get his kidney back or get money for it, Arthur Caplan at the University of Pennsylvania’s Centre for Bioethics, put it as:

“somewhere between impossible and completely impossible”.

What’s more, no reputable surgeon would perform such a transplant and no court could compel a person to undergo an operation, he said.

The NBC New York article is here.

Changing Property Division Law in the UK

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

With the Florida legislative season underway, it is important to keep an eye on what other legislatures are doing for family law. This is especially true with news that the UK is set to explore changing the law of property division during a divorce in England and Wales.

Property Division Law

A spanner in the works

The current property division law in the United Kingdom, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, has recently been criticized by people as being uncertain and unpredictable. Many argue spouses are left to turning to costly litigation due to a lack of clear guidance on how wealth should be divided.

The Law Commission, the independent agency which reviews legislation, may examine whether the act needs updating with further announcements expected “very soon”.

London has developed a reputation as a magnet for wealthy couples seeking a divorce in recent decades because of the generosity of financial awards given to ex-wives by the courts in the capital.

The English legal system tends to split the combined wealth of divorcing spouses equally even if one partner is the breadwinner. This is similar to the United States, but is in contrast to many European countries, where financial awards are far less generous and maintenance is only given for a limited number of years.

Under the current law, spouses who go to court can spend thousands on legal fees because legal aid is no longer available for most types of family law, and the drawn-out court battles can be detrimental to children.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about the subject of property division in Florida many times before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by Florida Statutes as interpreted by case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their nonmarital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties. In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal. However, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, the court has the authority to award an unequal distribution of marital assets.

However, the court must base an unequal distribution on certain factors, including: the contribution to the marriage by each spouse; the economic circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, or any interrupting of personal careers or education.

It has been a long-standing rule in Florida that an unequal distribution of marital assets may be justified to compensate for things such as a spouse’s intentional dissipation, waste, depletion or destruction of marital assets.

Parliamentary Chinwag

The status of prenuptial agreements in the UK may also be considered. Prenuptial agreements in the UK are legal documents specifying how assets are to be divided when the marriage ends. Prenuptial agreements are now recognized by UK courts following a seminal 2010 Supreme Court involving a German paper industry heiress.

But legal experts believe prenuptial agreements in the UK should be put on to a more formal, statutory footing and enshrined in law. Others complain the legislation, which has been subsequently developed by judge-made case law, allows judges to use their discretion to assess each case and make different awards, creating uncertainty.

Judges have flexibility when it comes to allocating settlements but the variation in judgment, said lawyers, made it difficult to advise clients about the likely outcome of their case.

Critics of the current property division system believe obscurities in the legislation should be tackled. Lawyers highlighted regional variations in how divorces are settled. Many critics complain that London courts tend to award more generously, while many courts outside the capital prefer to give “time-limited” maintenance to financially weaker spouses.

Some argue that the law also fails to reflect the way British society has changed in the past 50 years — with women more financially independent and with dual earning couples becoming the norm.

The Financial Times article is here.

Adultery and Property Division at the Yellowstone

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Is it 1883 at the Yellowstone Ranch? Recently, a Montana legislator proposed a new bill that would turn the clock back on no-fault divorce by allowing family courts to consider adultery when deciding on a property division. The bill would also allow the court to award attorneys’ fees and costs of a divorce in cases of adultery.

Adultery Property Divorce

Dividing the ‘Oro y Plata’

The bill says in considering how to divide up assets and property during a couple’s divorce, a court “shall” consider “physical abuse or adultery that substantially contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” along with a host of other things, like how long they were married, their income levels, health and more.

Under House Bill 237, which saw its first hearing Friday, if a court finds the abuse or cheating “substantially” contributed to the deterioration of the marriage, it “may” order the abuser or cheater to pay “a reasonable amount” of the other spouse’s attorney’s fees.

The bill further adds that “physical abuse or adultery alone” could allow the court to split the couple’s assets disproportionately. The measure would also apply to orders in which one spouse has to cover ongoing living costs for the other.

Current law says courts have to make that decision “without regard to marital misconduct.” Under the new bill proposed:

In a case in which the court finds physical abuse or adultery substantially contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court may order the offending party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining and defending any proceeding under this chapter and for professional fees, including sums for legal and professional services rendered and costs incurred prior to the commencement of the proceedings or after entry of judgment. The court may order that the amount be paid directly to the professional, who may enforce the order in the professional’s name.

One of the proponents who testified was a woman who said she ran a domestic violence program on the Hi-Line. She said perhaps adultery and physical abuse needed to be defined, though she said she believed physical abuse included adultery.

The sponsor said he was open to a possible amendment defining each.

Florida Adultery and Property Division

I’ve written about property and adultery before. Adultery can be the cause of a divorce, but can it impact the outcome? Since Florida became a no-fault state, the fact that Beth may have cheated on Rip would not be a drama played out in court.

Interestingly, while anyone can file for divorce in Florida without proving grounds, there is still a Florida statutory basis for adultery to be an issue in your divorce proceedings. But not in the way most people think.

Florida is an equitable distribution state, and it is presumed that property should be evenly divided. This presumption may be overcome by proof that one spouse intentionally wasted marital assets. This waste is sometimes known as dissipation. Paying for expensive jewelry, foreign trips, rent, car payments, and dinners for girlfriends and boyfriends is considered wasting marital assets. The court has the power to reduce an adulterer’s equitable distribution to credit the marital estate for waste.

Adultery alone would not really be grounds for an unequal distribution if there was no dissipation. The rationale is that dealing with allegations of marital misconduct, such as adultery, would be a step back to 1923: before our no-fault system was enacted.

Big Problems in Big Sky Country

Many are opposing the bill: “This bill is giving abusive partners a legal tool to use allegations of adultery in a public forum against their spouse to harass, humiliate and intimidate them into staying in a violent relationship,” said a Missoula family law attorney who testified in opposition to House Bill 237.

An attorney who said 90% of their caseload involves survivors of domestic violence, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill, if passed, “would be devastating for survivors.”

Abusers often accuse their spouses of adultery to “exercise power and control” over them and the bill would help them utilize the justice system to continue the cycle.

The attorney also said the measure would encourage parties to litigate who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, which would exacerbate already costly divorce proceedings. It would also further overburden courts where half of the cases involved family law\.

A domestic violence prosecutor for the City of Billings, said he was concerned judges might believe:

“The question we always get is why doesn’t she just leave? Well, this bill will help answer that question if it passes.”

The prosecutor also explained how domestic abusers – who are usually men, he said – see their wives as property and expendable resources and themselves “almost always (as) the victim.” He said the bill treats violence and adultery as the “exact same thing. Leveling accusations of domestic violence requires some sort of proof, and remember, one of these things is illegal; the other is not.”

The Daily Montanan article is here.

Equitable Distribution of Boudoir Photos in Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

How a family court decides the equitable distribution of boudoir photos, complete with intimate inscriptions and nude photographs, is never easy. A Utah family court recently ordered a woman to hand over her most intimate photographs to her ex-husband and a third-party photographer he chose.

Equitable distribution Boudoir

‘Utah: Life Elevated’

A former wife was married for 25 years and together for 27. As expected, the process of splitting their assets would be complex in a long marriage. The issue became so complex, negotiations failed and a one-day bench trial had to be held.

After the trial, the family judge ordered the former wife to surrender her most intimate photographs of herself to a third-party photographer for editing, and then ordered that the edited photos be given to her ex-husband for his viewing pleasure.

“You don’t know where to turn because you don’t know the law and you have not only your ex-husband who you were married to for years (thinking) that forcing you to distribute basically porn is OK … you have his attorney that also thinks that’s OK. And then you bring it in front of a judge, and he thinks it’s OK.”

The family court’s finding of facts dated July 7th — the day the divorce was finalized — found that the nude photos were given as gifts to the former husband earlier in their marriage, and therefore he “has the right to retain them and the memories they provide.”

The court also found the former wife has a right for her intimate photos to not be in her ex-husband’s possession. So how did the family judge decide the steamy issue? The judge ordered her to turn the images over to the original photographer for editing.

That person is then to do whatever it takes to modify the pages of the pictures so that any photographs of the former wife in lingerie or that sort of thing or even without clothing are obscured and taken out, but the (photo inscriptions) are maintained for the memory’s sake.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets which are not divided include things such as assets acquired before the marriage; assets you acquired separately by non-interspousal gift, and assets excluded as marital in a valid written agreement.

Conversely, marital assets which are subject to division, generally include things like assets and liabilities acquired during the marriage, the enhancement in value of some nonmarital assets – and for anyone giving their spouse a gift of sensual boudoir photographs – interspousal gifts during the marriage.

Wisdom of Solomon

Despite the ruling, the original photographer refused to edit the images over a concern about ethics and legal repercussions to her photography business. Being a boudoir photographer, her clients trust her with their images and privacy, and the photographer took that responsibility seriously.

The judge then made a second ruling, and ordered the former wife to give the images to a different photographer for editing. She was also ordered to retain the original photos for 90-days before destroying them, in case her ex-husband wasn’t satisfied with the edits.

The former wife said her ex-husband isn’t happy with the edited photos, though she feels that she has complied with the court’s order, and she feels that her ex-husband’s demand for the photos was an attempt to control and hurt her.

“If all he was truly interested in was the inscriptions, he got those. I’ve complied with the court’s order, even though I believe strongly that (the) order (is) violating on many levels and has affected my emotional and mental health. I can’t imagine doing this to someone else.”

The ex-husband said his former wife’s description of the situation is her perspective. This is not my perspective nor the perspective of an impartial judge. It appears that she has intentionally misrepresented and sensationalized several aspects of a fair proceeding to manipulate the opinions of others for attention and validation of victimhood.

One attorney was quoted as saying equitable distribution in a divorce always involves a balancing of interests but the judge here has just made a mistake in the balancing of interests and has tipped things much too far in one direction.

The Salt Lake Tribune article is here.

Divorce and Digital Accounts

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Many couples are not only tied together in matrimony, but in their digital accounts too. If roughly half of marriages end in divorce, how do courts manage an equitable distribution of digital accounts such as Netflix, Amazon, Apple (and with House of the Dragon underway) HBO?

Digital Divorce

Stranger Things

The Washington Post reports that the average American has upwards of 150 digital accounts, according to password-management company Dashlane. That’s a decades-long record of an autonomous life lived online.

If a breakup is going to be an ugly one, a vindictive ex-spouse can cause a lot of digital damage. For instance, if you share cloud storage, or an Apple ID with your ex-spouse, there is a risk everything – from your photos and documents to your browsing and email history can be revealed.

Moving out of the marital home is already a hard and emotional decision. But, now you are faced with taking precautions when you are about to leave your digital home.

As soon as divorce becomes a reality, you need to decide if it’s time to change all the passwords to the accounts you plan on keeping after separation. This is especially true if you share devices like a computer or tablet. Many sources tell you to remember your passwords and create new ones for each account.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets excluded as marital in a valid written agreement.

Importantly for a hi-tech divorce, non-marital assets would include assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party before the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities.

Netflix and Chill?

In some cases, a couple can divide, close, or even trade digital assets and decide which of the two households will keep an account. Sharing a Netflix account within your household, for example, may save money. But after divorce keep in mind that account sharing is only permitted for users within the same household. Netflix has announced it will crack down on illegal account sharing.

Putting aside the streaming services, like Netflix, which can easily be closed or limited, many couples may need to continue to share access to certain online accounts, even after a divorce or separation.

It is not hard to see why some accounts might need to stay active. For example, a couple’s joint checking account and credit card account may need to remain active so that certain bills during the divorce can be timely paid. Electronic access to statements and transactions; automatic bill payment services, medical insurance and cloud storage and document sites for photos and important documents and other files may be necessary too.

The law has not caught up with the digital divorce. There are no specific statutes for sharing accounts or establishing consequences should an ex-spouse or spouse change a password to lock out shared accounts.

Depending on the account, you may need to share a single login, set up separate logins to access the same account, or create a new, separate account in your own name. Anyone considering divorce has to secure their online identity, protect their passwords, protect their privacy, and most likely divide or close the shared streaming services.

The Washington Post article is here.

Equitable Distribution of Google Stock

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Scott Hassan, known by some as the third Google founder, is finally headed to his divorce trial after nearly seven years battling over the equitable distribution of Google stock, real estate, and other technology stock – estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

Equitable Distribution Google

“I’m Feeling Lucky”

As the divorces of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos show, technology billionaires are trying to divorce quietly, behind closed doors. For example, when Google co-founder, Sergey Brin divorced his ex-wife, he hired a private judge to hash out the details.

A quick Google search shows that Hassan and Huynh’s divorce is anything but quiet. Huynh accuses her husband of engaging in “divorce terrorism,” such as creating a negative website called AllisonHuynh.com.

The site contains documents posted of sexual allegations related to Huynh’s wrongful termination suit against her former employer. They claim that Huynh threatened to “kill [her former employer] and then herself” if he ever left her and “kept track of when [her former employer] was out with a new girlfriend,” according to the cross complaint filed by [her former employer] and his attorney in response to Huynh’s suit.

After being accused of creating it, Hassan admitted to launching the site, seeding it with links to articles written about his ex — and links to court documents from three embarrassing lawsuits that involve her.

When confronted, he purportedly admitted to The Post:

“I did, but I have taken it down. It came together in a moment of frustration, when I felt Allison and her attorney were telling one-sided stories to the press. I thought aggregating publicly available information without commenting or editorializing would help … It only ended up making our dispute more public and tense, which was never what I intended.”

According to sources, in 2018, their estate was valued at $1.8 billion and he wants to give her a minuscule fraction.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets excluded as marital in a valid written agreement.

Importantly for this hi-tech divorce, non-marital assets would include assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party before the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities.

“I’m Feeling Wonderful”

Mr. Hassan was a research assistant at Stanford’s computer science department when he met Larry Page, then a Ph.D. candidate. When Larry and Sergey Brin founded Google in 1998, Hassan bought 160,000 shares for $800. In 2004, the shares were worth more than $200 million. The shares, now in Google’s parent company, Alphabet, would be valued at more than $13 billion today.

In 2001 they married in Las Vegas and there was no prenuptial agreement, and they barely discussed finances. Ms. Huynh says she supported the family financially in the early years but her husband denies that.

In 2006, during the marriage, the husband formed a limited liability company called Greenheart Investments. Greenheart was valued at more than $1 billion in 2015.

Huynh wants Greenheart to be considered community property because Hassan repeatedly muddied the line between his separate assets and their community property. But Hassan argues that the company should be considered his separate property because it was started with his pre-marital assets.

Hassan acknowledged during court proceedings that he had set up Greenheart as his own company to keep certain assets ‘completely separate’ from Allison.” She insists it is community property — which partners must, typically, divide equally under California law.

Hassan maintains “that the disputed assets are properly characterized as my separate property — this does not necessarily mean that the community, or Allison, will not be compensated,” Hassan said. “I already agreed to provide her with a significant amount of money every month.”

But Huynh purportedly told The New York Post:

“His miserly position is ludicrous. I pray that a Big Tech billionaire will not get away with his attempt to cheat his children and me while he walks away with everything.”

The New York Times article is here.